Law Updates for December 24, 2010

Myles, 35 FLW 2819, 3rd DCA - DNA match with in the State Index Data Bank for unresolved crimes resulted in "cold hits" for unsolved rapes.  Probable cause for the arrest of the def, and DNA swabs taken after the arrest were admissible.

Watana, 35 FLW 2824, 4th DCA, Consent, Voluntariness -  Record supports trial court determination that there was no voluntary consent to search def's person even though def was properly stopped for speeding. Trial court was free to reject ofc's testimony that when he asked the def to step out of the vehicle, and then for permission to search his person, def complied with all the ofc's request without withdrawing or resisting consent.  Court finding any consent given was submission to authority and not voluntary, supported by competent evidence.  Nothing in record to indicate that a search of his person was anything more than one step in the ticket writing process.

Neal, 35 FLW 2835, 4th DCA, Evidence - Trial court erred in allowing police ofc to testify it is common not to find a gun in armed robbery cases.  Testimony describes general behavior and, used to bolster the charge this was an armed robbery even though no gun was found or linked to the def, was prejudicial and not harmless.

Barrios, 35 FLW 2837, 4th DCA - Prosecutor's comments during closing argument asking the jury if they would allow the def to get away with it and arguing the only true and just verdict was guilty was improper and prejudicial-new trial.

Lewis, 35 FLW 2848, 4th DCA, Kidnapping - Court should have granted a JOA, Def's actions of ordering store manager to a different room of the store during the robbery, ordering manger to lie on the floor, and unlocking one of the handcuffs so that neither victim was bound or barricaded when the def fled insufficient to lead to the separate crime of kidnapping.

Higerd, 35 FLW 2874, 1st DCA - Possession of child pornography in Airline luggage.  First Impression, Administrative search of an accordion folder inside def's checked baggage by TSA officer.  Bag was randomly selected.  Physical administrative search of luggage was not unnecessarily extensive or inclusive and did not violate the 4th A. TSA officer stopped as soon as saw the pictures and contacted police who got a warrant.  Even if search violated 4th A., good faith exception to warrant applies because TSA officer would not have known search was illegal.

McCoy, 35 FLW 2876, 1st DCA, Trafficking in Hydrocodone - Jury Instructions.  Trial court's failure to instruct the jury on prescription defense that the wife was holding her husband's medication was fundamental error, an error compounded by the prosecutor's closing arguments that there was no defense to the def's possession of the pills, where presenting an "affirmative defense" has to prove fundamental error for lack of the jury instruction which was done here.

Davis, 35 FLW 2882, 1st DCA,  - Error to admit testimony of police investigator recounting statement of witness who had previously confessed to the investigator and implicated the def, but who testified at trial he was unable to remember anything about the incident except that he was one of the robbers.  Testimony did not fall into the exception about statements identifying a person which applies if the declarant was an eyewitness or a victim or after perceiving that person soon after the crime or coming in contact with her.  Officer's testimony could not be used as impeachment as the witness said he did not remember anything and no evidence that the witness appeared to be fabricating lack of memory.  Not harmless error

Gentles, 35 FLW 2900, 4th DCA, - Seizure occurred when ofc directed the def  to turn off his car engine, when ofc notified the def asleep in his parked car with motor running during early morning hours in a shopping mall. Seizure not based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or specific concern for officer safety or the health and safety of def or others.  Trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.



The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley, P.A.

Law Updates for December 17, 2010

Dennis, 35 FLW 731,S. Ct., Stand your ground immunity.  Trial court should decide the factual questions of the applicability statutory immunity, 776.032, should not be a C 4 Motion but a Motion to Dismiss under 3.190(b).

K.C., 35 flw 2694, 4th DCA, Possession of BB gun on school property.  Evidence was insufficient to prove that BB gun juvenile with possessing was a deadly weapon, where it was in a book bag, not loaded and no evidenced used or threatened to use the BB gun as a bludgeon.

C.N., 35 FLW 2699, 2nd DCA, Disorderly conduct.  Error to adjudicate juvenile delinquent for DOC for shouting and using foul language.  No evidence that the juvenile's words either caused crowd to gather or incited the crowd to engage in an immediate breach of the peace.  Officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that juvenile was committing a crime and was not performing a legal duty when he arrested the juvenile without a warrant for that offense.  Error to adjudicate for the resisting charge.

Redd, 35 FLW 2706, 1st DCA, Trafficking in Cocaine.  Double hearsay elicited by the state and heavily relied on to prove that the def was in possession of cocaine was not admissible and def did not open the door to its admission.  Without hearsay statements state would not have been able to prove that the def had dominion and control over the contraband, knew of its presence, and knew of its illicit nature.  New trial required

Freeman, 35 FLW 2748, 2nd DCA, Voir Dire.  Error to deny challenge for cause for juror who expressed some doubt about her ability to be fair and impartial in her assessment of witness's credibility, stating she might give more credibility to police officers(Police officers in her family).  Preserved for appeal properly, not required to show legally objectionable juror on the jury.


The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley, P.A.

Law Updates for December 10, 2010

Cable, 35 FLW 705, Fla, Knock and Announce.  Exclusionary rule applies to violations of Florida's knock and announce statute.

Burke, 35 FLW 2610, 2nd DCA, Evidence was insufficient to prove that the child was physically or mentally impaired, for purposes of 827.03(1), by def's acts of twisting his arm, pressing against his knee, and holding him by the hair, cites cases.

Colbert, III, 35 FLW 2624, 4th DCA, Evidence insufficient to sustain conviction for burglary of the retail store where the def was standing in the area of store open to the public when he broke the side glass panel of the jewelry case, reached in, and grabbed several pieces of jewelry.  Fundamental error  for leaving the scene of the accident. 316.061(1) when the evidence is insufficient to establish "driven or attended" where neither owner or someone in possession of the vehicle was present when the def crashed into the parked car.

Wyrick, 35 FLW 2666, 5th DCA, Def was properly charged with third-degree felony, rather than 1st degree MM, for DWLS where the defendant had been designated as a habitual traffic offender at the time the license was revoked.  All three prior suspensions have to be for suspensions based on factors listed in 322.34(10)a 1-5.

Stelmack, 35 FLW 2672, 2nd DCA, Possession of photograph or representation that, in whole or in part, includes "sexual conduct of a child." - Error to deny JOA where the conviction was based on def's possession of several images showing faces and heads of children pasted onto images of 19 year old women lewdly exhibiting her genitals.  No sexual conduct by a child only sexual conduct in images was that of an adult.



The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley, P.A.

Marijuana Cultivation: Grow Houses and Hydroponic Operations

When it comes to indoor marijuana cultivation, Florida is one of the nation's leaders. Grow houses have been found in more than two-thirds of Florida's counties, and over 1000 hydroponic operations have been busted in Florida to date. As a result of the drastic increase in marijuana cultivation, Florida has employed multi-agency drug task forces such as HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) that work alongside the Office of National Drug Control Policy to bust hydroponic operations.

Hydroponic grow houses enable operators to cultivate marijuana plants with higher levels of THC than are typical of plants grown outdoors. Sophisticated hydroponic operations use little to no soil, simulate sunlight by utilizing high intensity lamps, and incorporate irrigation systems of water and chemical fertilizers. Often, these types of operations include specially designed timing systems for lighting and watering, as well as electric meter diversions. Because of the technology used, many cannabis grow houses require little oversight. However, there are cases in which helpers are hired by cultivators to oversee the operations.

The increasing number of arrests relating to marijuana cultivation can be attributed in large part to the tumultuous climate of the economy. The virtually non-existent Florida real estate market has essentially left homes open for cultivation. The rise of abandoned and foreclosed homes in Florida combined with the high level of unemployment has created a perfect storm for cultivation and hydroponic operations.

Not all hydroponic operations are found within foreclosed or abandoned homes. Many such operations are run in rental homes. Growers often rent homes from landlords as tenants, typically looking for homes with large attic space to accommodate the technology that will be used. If attic space is sparse, growers have been found to cut holes through walls, or run their operations underneath the houses in order to provide adequate ventilation for both the high intensity lamps and the dampness caused by the irrigation systems. Heat reducing curtains and blinds, concrete subfloors that absorb heat, foam insulation, and underground exhaust systems are also typical installations and modifications found within grow houses.

Landlords provide an invaluable resource to law enforcement because landlords often have the contractual right under the lease to inspect their rental properties upon giving merely 24 hour notice to renters. If a landlord enters a home and has reason to believe that a hydroponic operation is being run in the home, either because he observed hydroponic materials or noticed other unusual modifications or damage to the home (including mold), the landlord may be able to provide the police with the evidence they need to obtain a search warrant. Additionally, landlords and homeowners have incentive to report their findings to the police because Florida law allows charges to be brought against a homeowner or landlord who knowingly owns a house being used to grow marijuana, even if he or she does not live there. Reporting hydroponic operations immediately upon discovery to law enforcement provides homeowners and landlords a safe haven from prosecution.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kyllo v. United States, 533 US 27 (2001) that the use of infrared technology and thermal imaging to detect heat coming from suspected grow houses is intrusive on Constitutional rights and therefore illegal, law enforcement agencies have had to turn to other forms of investigation to locate hydroponic operations. The police have begun relying upon public reporting of unusual activities relating to the homes: uncommon amounts and types of trash around the home, added electrical equipment, exhaust emissions, unusual warmth around the house, smells coming from the house, et cetera. Many of these types of operations are discovered by law enforcement via anonymous tipsters and informants.

Other factors that alert law enforcement of the potential existence of a grow house may be unnoticeable by the general public. However, high power consumption and unusually large power bills (especially when the small number of people alleged to reside in the home is taken into consideration) are often the keys to discovering a hydroponic operation. Because of this, electricians and power companies are another important resource for the police. FPL can monitor spikes in energy use and report unusually high electric bills to law enforcement agencies. In addition, the very electricians who are paid by growers to bypass electric meters are often informants.

In conjunction with other methods of investigation, police officers have begun utilizing what is known as "knock and talks" at suspected grow houses, wherein officers attempt to speak with homeowners or renters without warrants. Aside from the factors previously mentioned that generally alert law enforcement to the existence of a grow house, officers have been known to wait outside of hydroponic stores and follow those who exit the stores home. Once they have this knowledge to tip them off, officers will either undergo long-term surveillance of suspected grow houses or immediately initiate the knock and talk. If they do not have sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant, they can and will try to gain access to a house by knocking on the door and simply asking whoever answers the door if the officers can come inside to talk for a minute. People who are not fully aware of their rights are often caught in this trap, either revealing their operations by cracking open the door enough for the officers to see inside or by letting the officers inside themselves. Once officers have either witnessed the operation first hand or obtained sufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant, they may enter the suspected grow house and seize and destroy all hydroponic equipment found, so long as photographs or videos of the evidence are taken. Videos and pictures of the evidence are now allowed to replace the actual evidence itself in courtroom presentation, making preservation of the evidence unnecessary pursuant to Florida Statute 893.10. Police officers who destroy the equipment are immune from civil liability.

Possession of cannabis (less than 20 grams) is a misdemeanor in the State of Florida. However, such charges can quickly transform into felonies when hydroponic operations come into the picture, under Florida Statute 893.1351, the Marijuana Grow House Eradication Act. Until recently, Florida law charged growers whose operations had more than 300 plants with a drug trafficking charge. Now, only 25 plants are necessary to constitute prima facie evidence that the cannabis is intended for sale or distribution. A grower with 25 plants can be charged with a second degree felony which carries with it a maximum sentence of 15 years in Florida State Prison. Grow houses that are found to have been the homes of a child further transform those same charges into first degree felonies, with a maximum sentence of 30 years in Florida State Prison. Florida's new grow house laws are even tougher than the Federal standard, which allows up to 100 plants before a trafficking charge can be pursued. Florida statutes, specifically section 893.135, define marijuana plants as seedling or cuttings with noticeable "root formation." Thus, even dead or already-harvested cannabis plants are figured into the total plant count by law enforcement. In addition to prison time, fines included with such charges can be in the tens of thousands, and they can be enhanced if the accused is a prior offender.

Other Ways Grow Houses are Discovered:

•Long-term police surveillance

•Hydroponic Store surveillance

•Anonymous tips

•Tips from "friends" and/or significant others

•Reports from FPL

•Informants

•Landlord tips

•Knock and Talks

•Search Warrants

•Operations in plain view

Key Grow House Indicators:

•Spikes in power usage

•Electricity bypass

•Unusual warmth around the house

•Odors from the house

•Reports of unusual activities

•People coming and going

•Uncommon amounts and types of trash

•Added electrical equipment

•Exhaust emissions

•Mold

For the Florida statute chapter regarding marijuana cultivation and penalties, see §893.135, Fla. Stat. (2010).

Copyright (c) 2010, Law Office of Roger P. Foley


The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley,P.A.

Law Updates for November 26, 2010

Fernandez, 35 FLW 2549, 3rd DCA, Exclusionary rule does not apply to knock and announces cases, certify conflict with Coble 18 So. 3d(2nd DCA) to Florida Supreme Court. Does Florida statutory knock and announce provisions apply such that the exclusionary rule would apply.

Johnson, 35 FLW 2554, 3rd DCA, Prior testimony - The Court erred in excluding witness testimony from a prior trial where defense was unable to locate the witness to testify in second trial and witness testimony was relevant to claim of self defense.

J.T., 35 FLW 2559, 4th DCA, BB Gun - Deadly Weapon, for the state, cites the law, seems to be important that the BB gun was placed in evidence.

Holley, 35 FLW 2560, 4th DCA, Trial court reversibly erred in limiting defense counsel cross exam of state witness about her failure to appear for defense deposition and response for rule to show cause issued by trial court, where information was relevant to show her motive, bias, and lack of trustworthiness.


The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley,P.A.

Plea Bargains in Criminal Cases – Do You Really Want to Plea?

Less than 8% percent of criminal cases go to a jury trial. Many argue that the percentage of individuals who actually make it to a jury is less than five percent. But does it really matter what the number is when we are talking about such low percentages?  Why are defendants not exercising their Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial? The United States judicial system still operates under the ideal that the accused are innocent until proven guilty; so why are defendants accused of crimes relinquishing their given right? While it’s possible that the police are doing a wonderful job of investigating crimes and that everyone arrested is actually guilty of the crime charged, I don’t buy it and neither do you.

So why is this phenomenon repeatedly occurring? I think there are several likely reasons causing criminal defendants to forfeit their rights to a jury trial, but today I’m going to discuss two.

1. Police say what they need to say in order to get the conviction.

Do police officers lie? Yes. Why? I don’t know. But if I had to guess, I would say that it probably has to do with their frustration with the system. Police officers have to deal with individuals at their worst every day and are affected by the negativity. They see these perpetrators go to court, take a deal, and get slapped on the wrist with probation or a fine. Is that justice for the victims? Is that justice for the officers who put their lives on the line for the benefit of society? If you attempt to stand in an officer’s shoes, it is not difficult to see how an officer can feel that the high risks they assume are not fairly balanced against the punishments, or lack thereof, that defendants often receive. Through an officer’s eyes, defendants commit serious crimes and usually wind up pleading only to probation, only to be out on the street again ultimately putting the officer at risk once more. Combine that knowledge with normal daily stresses of the job, and you have an officer who takes justice into his/her own hands, altering testimony, saying what needs to be said in a police report so that the case never goes to trial, the defendant pleads guilty, the State gets the conviction, and the defendant goes to prison.

The career criminal will eventually commit enough criminal acts that he/she will score mandatory prison – finally paying their debt to society. … Right? Maybe. But the problem with this type of “justice” lies with the first time offender. The suspect who is in the wrong place at the wrong time. The guy who has the wrong friend. That guy, maybe you, who gets charged with a crime by an officer who embellishes the truth to get a conviction. Suddenly your life is ruined by the possibility of prison or the criminal record you will receive by a plea bargain to a probationary period. The officer has made the facts look unbeatable, the court system scares you, and so you forfeit your right to a trial by taking a plea. You see no other way out, and now your life is forever changed. That is one reason I believe defendants are throwing away their right to trial, their day in court, their opportunity to be heard, and taking the safe route: because officers have made defending a criminal case seem impossible to defendants.

Why else do defendants forfeit their right to a jury trial?

2. Inexperienced, greedy, lazy Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Walking into the court room every day of the week allows me to watch and critique other criminal lawyers. Who am I to critique others? I’m nobody famous. But I am a guy who took an oath to do my best for my client and I’m the guy writing this blog, so I will call it as I see it. The numbers may not be as low as the numbers of defendants avoiding jury trials, but when looking around the court room it appears that maybe 10% percent of the criminal defense bar actually cares about the system. Sure, all attorneys sit around discussing war stories, convincing themselves and others that they care. But the truth is that they sleep like babies when their clients plea to a crime and/or go to prison… especially when they have been paid their entire legal fee. How is it that 90% percent of criminal defense attorneys drive exotic cars, have $500-$1000 shoes, have multiple houses, but plea bargain nearly 100% percent of their cases without ever taking a deposition? How can they recommend to their clients that they plead guilty or no contest on cases that can be won by doing actual work; by taking depositions, by ordering 911 and dispatch tapes, by going to the scene of the alleged crime, and by talking to their client and witnesses? How?

It’s easy. Defendants have no idea that these lawyers plea bargain every case instead of actually fighting the fight. Criminal defense lawyers take advantage of the fact that the Florida Bar does not allow them to advertise their wins; if no one is actually counting, then attorneys can easily embellish to their clients how great they are prior to getting paid. Once they have their client’s money, the future becomes bleak for the client. Instead of taking depositions, looking for mistakes and constitutional rights violations, and doing actual work to represent the client to the best of their ability, the attorneys offer their professional advice that a plea is inevitable and the best choice, as contrasted against the possibility of prison. There is rarely a mention of the client being innocent until proven guilty. Instead of fighting the case and making the State prove guilt beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt, these attorneys are quick advise their clients to admit guilt (sometimes when they aren’t even guilty) and sustain convictions that will, in many cases, forever change the clients’ lives. All for the sake of getting paid and quickly getting rid of cases. Defendants take the plea because they trust their lawyer’s advice; they believe that the lawyer is looking out for their best interest. Unfortunately it seems that in actuality, many defense attorneys are looking out only for Number One.

It is sad to see that so many attorneys lack the enthusiasm necessary to do their job properly, even when paid. Did anyone get the memo that pleading Guilty or No Contest should be avoided, if possible, because of its actual effects on the client’s life? Not only can a plea eliminate future possibilities for the defendant, such as the ability to gain employment, rent an apartment, gain admission to a university, but a plea also carries with it numerous negative aspects, such as a criminal record, punishment, and possible future harassment or harsher treatment by police. When positive opportunities cease to exist and are replaced by negative consequences in a person’s life, the individual deteriorates and so does our society.

Whether the client actually committed the crime is irrelevant in this discussion. A defense attorney is supposed to fight for the defendant’s rights, as all of their billboards and advertisements so ironically say.

If you’re a criminal defense attorney and you disagree, re-examine yourself and think about the last case you plead without taking a deposition. Talk is cheap. Take a deposition and work on the case. Don’t plead every case. Force the State to prove your client guilty. When police make mistakes, when prosecutors make mistakes, those mistakes should be revealed and the defendant should walk away. Once enough people walk, the police and State will have to work harder to do their jobs right; they will be held to a higher standard and will be educated on the law. Don’t devalue our society by being lazy and taking the easy plea – take some pride by looking in the mirror at who you really are, not by what you hope is portrayed to people as you disguise yourself as successful with your fancy suits and expensive shoes. Try earning them before wearing them; it makes you feel a lot taller.

If you’re a police officer and you disagree, think about the last report you wrote, or the last time you testified. Was everything negative, or did you actually talk about the weaknesses of the arrest, or what the defendant did well during their roadside sobriety exercises?

If you’re a member of the general public, then I say: you’re welcome. Because it is better that you are informed.

Copyright (c) 2010, Law Office of Roger P. Foley


The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley,P.A.

The Criminal Process: A Briefing

The criminal justice system can be very complex, extremely difficult, and intimidating without a guide to navigate you through it. The following is a brief explanation of the various steps in a criminal case.

Arrest: The criminal process usually begins when the police have begun a criminal investigation and subsequently take you into custody. “Custody” can mean one of two things: either you were physically arrested (handcuffed, taken to jail, fingerprinted, etc.), or you were served with a written Notice to Appear in lieu of physical arrest. Either way, you are considered arrested and this ultimately means that the government will formally charge you with alleged criminal violations.

First Appearance: After the initial police investigation and arrest, the first court date in a criminal case is First Appearance. During First Appearance, a person who has been arrested will stand in court before a Judge or Magistrate for the first time. That judge/magistrate will determine if there was probable cause for the arrest. If the judge finds that there was probable cause, he or she will set a bond. It is often beneficial to have an attorney present at First Appearance because an attorney can negotiate or argue on your behalf for a lower bond amount. Without an attorney present, the judge/magistrate will set the bond at his or her discretion. From there, the case will go to the State Attorney’s Office.

Case Filing: After the first appearance, a criminal case is then sent to the Case Filing Division of the State Attorney’s Office. There, an assistant state attorney is assigned to review the basic facts of the case and determine how charges should be filed. In making this decision, the case filer reviews police reports and witness information. Based on this, he or she ultimately decides whether the arrest charges should remain the same, be increased, decreased, or dismissed (also called no information). Often this is a critical time for a criminal defendant. If a person suspected of a crime retains an attorney quickly, that attorney may be able to speak with the case filer and influence his or her filing decision by discussing important factors in the case, such as mistakes made by law enforcement and important facts that may not be given in the police report. If the case filer decides to go forward and file the charge against you, despite your attorney’s best efforts, the next step is Arraignment.

Arraignment: Arraignment is a court date for the formal reading of the charges that the case filer has set forth in the charging document (called the Information). Arraignment is also where you will plead one of three ways: Not Guilty, Guilty, or Nolo Contendere (Latin for No Contest).  Unless you want to waive your rights, get your case over with immediately, and you don’t care about being convicted, you will plead Not Guilty. Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty. Not Guilty pleas are entered when you are innocent, when there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt, when you are uncertain how to plea, or when you want to demand your right to a trial. If you hire an attorney before your arraignment, he or she will generally enter a notice of appearance, written plea of not guilty, and request for jury trial for you so that you do not have to go to court on that date. After a formal plea of Not Guilty is entered, the next court date will be set.

[Note that just because your attorney requests a jury trial does not mean you have to go to trial; it is merely posturing to put you on the path that will allow you to get the most information on your case. No one wants to go to trial, and anyone who is eager to go to trial is generally a fool. Requesting a jury trial is merely a formality that will allow you to get Discovery, make arguments, and fight your case as far as you can before even getting to trial. You may wind up not going to trial at all, but in any event, the formality of requesting is generally necessary.]

Discovery: After an attorney signs onto a case, he or she will demand Discovery from the State Attorney. Discovery is essentially all of the evidence the State has available to use against you in your criminal case. It is your right to examine discovery if you are going the trial route, and it includes written documents, police reports, pictures, witness statements, video recordings, audio recordings, etc. Generally, Discovery documents take 60 to 90 days to obtain. Once an attorney is able to examine the discovery, he or she will be able to see who all of the witnesses against you are, take depositions and find out what the witnesses have to say, investigate your case, and form a defense strategy. This is also the time during which your attorney will file applicable motions. Perhaps your Constitutional rights have been violated by an unlawful search and seizure. An experienced attorney will know to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of your rights. Or, maybe the State does not have sufficient evidence against you and will be unable to prove the elements of the charges. A skilled attorney will know to file a Motion to Dismiss and argue that your case should be thrown out all together. If the motions are successful, odds are your case will be over. If the motions are ultimately unsuccessful, then you will have to decide whether you want to negotiate a plea agreement with the State or take your case to trial.

Plea: If you choose not to go to trial, your attorney will negotiate a plea agreement with the State Attorney that will include the sentence to be imposed. You will ultimately go to court for a Plea Conference and change your plea from Not Guilty to either Guilty or No Contest.  Although the Judge is not required to accept the State Attorney's agreement, most Judges will honor negotiated plea agreements. At this point, you will have to comply with whatever sentence has been negotiated or is imposed, and your case will be over. It is important to note that there are various alternatives in sentencing that may include Pretrial Diversion, Pretrial Intervention, Drug Court, and Probation. Each of these programs has limitations and requirements.  It is extremely important that you seek out an attorney who is familiar with these programs as well as which Judges may or may not look favorably upon these options.

Trial: If you choose to go to trial, your attorney will fight your case either before a Judge or before a Jury of your peers. [Note that you have the right to a Speedy Trial. This means that if you demand Speedy Trial and do not waive your right to it, the State will have to bring you to trial within a certain time period (90 days for a Misdemeanor, or 175 days for a Felony). However, most cases are benefited by waiving the right to a speedy trial to allow an attorney more time to defend the case.] If you are acquitted during Trial by a Judgment of Acquittal or you are found Not Guilty by the Judge or Jury, your case is over and you are free to go. You cannot be retried under Double Jeopardy protections. If, however, you are found guilty, there will be a Sentencing Hearing.  This will give you, your attorney, and any other interested persons the opportunity to speak on your behalf; this is the time to present witnesses who will testify as to your character.  For the purposes of sentencing, the Judge may order a Pre-Sentence Investigation into your background and circumstances. At the end of the hearing, after the Judge has considered everything put before the court, the Judge will impose a sentence. Hopefully, though, you will be acquitted during trial and will not ever have to worry about a sentencing hearing.

Appeal: A person convicted of a crime has the right to appeal his or her conviction. During the appeal process the Judge may allow your release on bail pending the outcome; however, the Judge will only do this if he or she believes that the appeal has merit and that you will reappear in court.  An appeal must be filed within 30 days of sentencing, but should be filed as soon as possible.

Although this explanation doesn’t cover everything you will encounter in the criminal justice system, hopefully it gave you a basic understanding of what you can expect. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call an attorney to guide you through the process.

Copyright (c) 2010, Law Office of Roger P. Foley


The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley,P.A.